3 ms·

I would be exceptionally cautious about any report coming out of the Daily Mail. It long ago ceased to be a serious newspaper (it is not alone in this btw: the

I would be exceptionally cautious about any report coming out of the Daily Mail. It long ago ceased to be a serious newspaper (it is not alone in this btw: the UK press is notoriously wild). In this case, the Mail is reporting on a claim that NIH and DoD were involved, via the EcoHealth Alliance org, in bio research that led to shady goings on in Wuhan. But it turns out that this wasnt the case because the grant application was denied. Maybe Covid escaped from a lab in Wuhan, maybe it escaped from a wet market, who knows. But this article is solidly in keeping with the Daily Mail's general anti-science, anti-vax tenor and should not be considered gospel truth by itself.

hammock 3y ago
You appear to be moving the goalposts(?) of a strawman argument (that the US was involved in the creation of Covid). This is not a dubiously sourced report. This is documents released by the federal government, through official channels, that outline a laboratory blueprint of the Covid-19 virus that was eventually found in the wild (and then suggested to be of likely natural origin). What any of that has to do with “anti-science”, or with lifesaving vaccines is beyond me
cheaprentalyeti 3y ago
" But it turns out that this wasnt the case because the grant application was denied. " They are basing that on the rejection of the research by DARPA, which of course they didn't tell us about to begin with until it got leaked by a whistleblower. First, it's a major lie of omission that they didn't mention that they proposed doing research to make the virus in a laboratory in the city they say the virus naturally arose in. Second, they were shopping the research to multiple agencies for funding. Third, they may have already done the research in anticipation that they were going to be funded; this is apparently a common practice in biological research. We can't tell, because their records were taken offline a couple months or so before the pandemic started. I'd like to recommend, for background information on this, Matt Ridley and Alina Chan's _Viral_.

hammock 3y ago

You appear to be moving the goalposts(?) of a strawman argument (that the US was involved in the creation of Covid). This is not a dubiously sourced report. This is documents released by the federal government, through official channels, that outline a laboratory blueprint of the Covid-19 virus that was eventually found in the wild (and then suggested to be of likely natural origin). What any of that has to do with “anti-science”, or with lifesaving vaccines is beyond me

cheaprentalyeti 3y ago

" But it turns out that this wasnt the case because the grant application was denied. " They are basing that on the rejection of the research by DARPA, which of course they didn't tell us about to begin with until it got leaked by a whistleblower. First, it's a major lie of omission that they didn't mention that they proposed doing research to make the virus in a laboratory in the city they say the virus naturally arose in. Second, they were shopping the research to multiple agencies for funding. Third, they may have already done the research in anticipation that they were going to be funded; this is apparently a common practice in biological research. We can't tell, because their records were taken offline a couple months or so before the pandemic started. I'd like to recommend, for background information on this, Matt Ridley and Alina Chan's _Viral_.